WOW - real MSEers

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Harry_Powell wrote: »

What's an 'upper class'?

upper class

  –noun a class of people above the middle class, having the highest social rank or standing based on wealth, family connections, and the like.

Origin:
1830–40

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

So does it actually matter if we elect people from the "upper classes"? Will they act in the interests of everyone?

Eric_Pisch

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

So does it actually matter if we elect people from the "upper classes"? Will they act in the interests of everyone?

They will still be professional politicians, out of step with reality, masters of spin, say anything to get elected and then go on there own self serving righteous campaign at odds with what the mass want.

The whole left right thing makes me laugh now, I cant tell the difference, taxes still go up faster than the cost of living, they all seam to leave richer than they went in. People vote for the one they hate the least, not for who will be best for the country (ie none of them)

As Mrs T once said My greatest achievement was New Torys, I mean New Labour :rotfl:

Harry_Powell

Are terms from 1840 and 1850 still appropriate as we approach 2010? When someone who plays a sport becomes a Lord and someone who used to flog cheap PCs becomes a Knight, are in still in a class society?

Do you consider yourself to be a certain class? Which class is this, and why?

torontoboy45

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Are terms from 1840 and 1850 still appropriate as we approach 2010? When someone who plays a sport becomes a Lord and someone who used to flog cheap PCs becomes a Knight, are in still in a class society?

Do you consider yourself to be a certain class? Which class is this, and why?

I'm working-class albeit with a few middle-class traits.

surely nobody doubts that class still exists in the UK?

pie81

I am less worried about the fact that they have lots of money. More worried about the fact that a lot of them (Boris, Cameron, Osborne) have been mates since they were in the Bullingdon Club at Oxford. First, it suggests that they may have been picked for their jobs due to being mates with each other rather than the best person for the job. Second, the Bullingdon Club's main activity is dressing in white tie, smashing up restaurants and then throwing down wads of cash to pay for the damage (just to show you can). Personally I'll struggle to vote for anyone who could at any time in their lives have been part of such a club.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Harry_Powell wrote: »

When someone who plays a sport becomes a Lord and someone who used to flog cheap PCs becomes a Knight, are in still in a class society?

Do you consider yourself to be a certain class? Which class is this, and why?

The majority of people are lower or middle class by definition. The Labour Party draws its representatives (MPs) from a broad church. The Tory party, on the other hand, seems to be made up of representatives who are from the upper classes. Many posters on here seem to think that these rich people will act in a way that benefits their best interests, so they intend to vote conservative. I don't understand how they have reached that conclusion.

Pete111

pie81 wrote: »

I am less worried about the fact that they have lots of money. More worried about the fact that a lot of them (Boris, Cameron, Osborne) have been mates since they were in the Bullingdon Club at Oxford. First, it suggests that they may have been picked for their jobs due to being mates with each other rather than the best person for the job. Second, the Bullingdon Club's main activity is dressing in white tie, smashing up restaurants and then throwing down wads of cash to pay for the damage (just to show you can). Personally I'll struggle to vote for anyone who could at any time in their lives have been part of such a club.

Goodness, isn't it just as well that all the current Labour crowd led such unblemished and virtuous lives during their formative years. One wonders when they had the chance to evolve so completely into the bunch of deplorable shysters they have proved themselves to be....


Class war eh? That'll be fun to watch!

Conrad

Presumably these wealthy socialists are right on:

T Blair
Lord Falconer
Lord Ahmed
Keith 6 houses Vass
Barbara Follet - multi millionaire
Tony McNulty - wife snares £300k pa of state money

Duffle coat wearing uber socialist, Donald Dewar's estate was worth £6m - you know the one that deliberatly gave the impression he was an ordinary bloke.

Then there's all those right on liberals at the beeb - the dimbleby's, k wark and many more trousering over £500k pa from the day job alone.

Ben Elton worth tens of millions - what a right on bloke eh
Frank £2m per year Skinner

Graham_Devon

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

So answer me this? Why did the Times tell David Cameron not to make promises he can't keep, if he never made a promise as you suggest? See post 22.

EDIT
May I remind you I don't care if Cameron can't keep a promise - Graham Devon started the waffle about promises! and you joined in....... I despair sometime too.

It's quite simple. Even my year 7s would get it.

"The Tories are Toffs" Discuss.

Cameron DID keep the promise. He promised to allow a referendum before any treaty was ratified.

He kept that promise throughout UNTIL the treaty was ratified. He cannot do anything more now. He has broken no promise. The treaty is now ratified and that's that, nothing more can be done.

To break a promise he would have had to promise it, and then go back on his promise. That has not been done.

I believe you know this, but are taking the opportunity of using smear tactics and hoping it works.